Wayne, I had a nicely formatted response typed out but I lost it. I'll just touch on key points.

Don't you hate that?

Quote:

Shall we continue harping that both dominant parties get along, electing only them all the while, only to dismiss unconventional candidates when they come along because they differ from those about which one side or the other is complaining?

I have no problem with a candidate not following the normal Rep/Dem mold, but that also means that candidate will have much less support from either party and thus will not be able to accomplish much. If one runs as a Republican one would expect to be supported by the majority of that party in most cases. I do not see that happening with Dr. Paul. Obama ran into a similar problem in the begining because not all of the Democrats supported him and all of the Republicans opposed anything he was supporting just because he was supporting it.

I think there needs to be a change, but the direction Dr. Paul would go is not one that I see is better than what we have now. I am a bit jaded because I spent a few years discussing politics and economics on a Libertarian oriented forum. Ron Paul was presented as somewhat of a god of the Libertarian movement before he ran for President. The problem is most of the solutions are too simplistic and fail once you start looking at how they would be implimented in any effective manner. The one key issue I had with them and Ron Paul was they opposed any influence by the federal government, but they will allow the state to violate rights as much as it wants.

Quote:

Transitioning to this, as you point out, will not be easy but then, that's no reason to dismiss either.

Again, I am not dismissing the change just the proposed change Dr. Paul could effect running as the GOP candidate for President, which is not much.

Quote:

Are we going to get a meaningful amount more out of what we did in Afghanistan than had we either done nothing or much, much less?

Yes, because if we had done nothing the organization would still be intact and protected by the Taliban. If we had done much, much less, it is hard to know as there is no way to quantify what we may have done or not done.

Quote:

Was the goal in Afghanistan the right goal?

It was the most right goal we could hope to accomplish. A further goal of equality for the citizens, etc., could have been set, but the US did not have the inclination to try to do that because of the cost in both resources and time.

In due time, I may reflect more positively on our "investment" there. I'm not getting my hopes up though.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

But it IS RELATED to US foreign policy and Ron Paul is the one candidate who would not have created these messes in the first place!

Quote:

No, but he would create whole new messes, which may be even worse.

It might be worth experimenting with in view of the mess created for the Iraqi people. I can't imagine a more hell'ish hell. We've done war. It has become a knee-jerk reaction while it should be the very, very last resort. It's too easy.

Quote:

You use an example which does not support your position very well. Very few candidates would have invaded Iraq without the cherry-picked and/or created intelligence that was used to justify it.

How could you possibly know this? Bush was elected and he accepted the erroneous intelligence ... or maybe he was in on it (?). If the information was cherry-picked or created ...how was this simple man, the President of the United States of America, manipulated? Who else would have or could have been manipulated? Was Bush an easy or easier target to manipulate than some other?

Quote:

How can this show Dr. Paul being the "only" candidate who would not have created that mess?

That mess was not his to decide. Dr. Paul did not have the decision making capabilities at the time, but he is telling us now that he would not have, and will not be manipulated.

Therefore, he is unlikely to create further messes.

Quote:

That is illogical as it assumes isolationism does not create messes as well.

Isolationism most likely comes with its own problems, but again, I cannot imagine a more hell'ish hell than that suffered by Iraq and ohhh, how many nations have been the victims of US foreign policy!

More hellish than 9/11 with a nuke added? More hellish than women living under Taliban rule.

Did we invade their country because of women's rights? If so, we would have done it a long time ago. This is a point that people bring up all the time but has NOTHING to do with why we invaded them. We can express moral indignation about their rather weird treatment of women, but that is not why we invaded.

We have nukes. Unless we disarm ours and the countries we supply with arms ... how can we possibly complain about Iran wanting to develop their own .... when they are surrounded by countries who are capable?

Quote:

More hellish than the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia prior to the NATO actions?

But how can we use this example or WW2 to justify the occupation of military bases in 160 countries today?

Quote:

Looking at the world with blinders is a good way to create a knee-jerk reaction. The poorly considered invasion of Iraq becomes the isolationist movement and the next time there really needs to be some action we ignore it as we did in the 1930s right up to where we were directly attacked and could not continue to do so.

You are using the examples of WW2 to justify our policing of the world today ..... Since WW2, we have had military bases in Germany. Time to shut it down? Ron Paul thinks so.

The American people are sick and tired of war, of the trillions spent on them and of the inexcuseable carnage and human suffering caused by them. If you don't send them in to begin with, there is far less to mitigate.

Quote:

Not if the inaction creates a larger problem to mitigate. How large would the problem have been if Hilter had allowed us to continue to ignore him? If he had not declared war after the Japanese attack we still would have ignored his actions and our aid to the Allies would have been curtailed due to our conflict with Japan. German war echnology would have had longer to develop without interruption.

Hitler is the reason for our continued "intervention" and present day carnage? Because we had an isolationist government in the 1940's, a present day theory of non-intervention is not valid? Yes, yes .... I see what you are saying ... that there are times and reasons ..... but history never repeats itself quite in the same ways.

Quote:

How does he prevent historical actions? The future is unknown and isolationism can be just as much of a problem as prior actions.

Let's try it. I bet it will serve up it's own problems for sure but nothing like the hell-fire unleashed on Iraq, ... and I imagine Iran will suffer the same, especially if Mit Romney gets in. He can't wait to invade Iran.

Quote:

How does that compare to the hell unleashed on Europe and the rest of the world because the US held an isolationist position that embolded the Axis powers? One good nuke can provide enough material to kill millions in a very slow and painful fashion.

As the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki know the strength of an atom bomb ....

So let us de-nuke the world! It is not fair for just one country to have nukes, while others do not. For one country to have nuclear capabilities, and then assist others to have them .... while imposing sanctions on Iran, for example, because they want to build their own ...... Craziness in progress. You cannot hope for peace in this way.

He is in favor of defence and not of nation building militarism. If we aren't molesting other countries, there is a much greater probability they will leave us alone.

Quote:

Really? Have you read any history at all? The economies of the world are inter-connected and as such we cannot be left alone by such actions.

And we cannot subject other nations to unfair economic losses in favor of our own, and not call it violence. We cannot live off the backs of third world nations, for example, and then impose this falsehood of "thirld world debt" on them. If the economies of the world are so interrelated .... and they are .... Why do other nations "rebel"? Disenfranchised groups will absolutely rebel when they are powerless.

The US has become a warrior nation and is itself, rogue, terrorizing nation after nation.

Quote:

Like those who harbor terrorist who plan attacks on the US?

And since occupying various countries in the middle east, there are even more who would like to attack the US.

Quote:

Not really, as the governments who ASKED for assistance in the area are no more lilely to want to attack the US. Kuwait and their "allies" in the region were more than happy to have the assistance of the multinational force led by the US.

They were not and are not even capable of attacking us anyway.

Quote:

The new government in Libya is not likely to support terrorist groups in the near future.

Who supported the US terrorists in Libya? Did the Libyan people want the US bombing their neighborhoods and universities? Did anyone ask the citizens of Libya? Why didn't the US invade Egypt? Seems the Egyptians took to Tahir Square without the US drones doing battle for them. We cannot save countries by bombing them.

Quote:

The government in Afghanistan supported the terrorist organization which did attack us. The old government in Iraq disliked us very much for not allowing them to keep Kuwait while killing their own people.

Why did they support that organization. Why?

The hornet's nest has been stirred. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate to have been honest enough to point out this glaring fact.

Quote:

Huh?

Huh what? Ron Paul admits that terrorists are created, in part, through our foreign policy to date. Has there been another candidate who has admitted to this?

Policing the world, shoving democracy down their throats, imposing sanctions if they do not obey .... of course they are murderously angry with the US and it is the foreign policy to date which leads us more and more into danger. And if we don't stop, it is 100% guaranteed there will be endless blood shed. Isn't it worth trying a different tact? As Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it." Wars just create more wars. It will be endless.

Quote:

I can see how asking the Iranians very nicely will keep them from building a nuclear arsenal and how none of the nations would ever allow one or more of their nuclear weapons to be used in an attack. Look at how rationally the North Korean government has acted with sanctions and tell us how it would have been better without them and the decreased income for their military.

Why shouldn't Iran build a nuclear weapon when they are surrounded by nations who have capabilities that they do not have? And when they have a super-power such as the US breathing down their necks? If they asked us to disarm our nukes, would we? Again, it is not sane or rational or even fair to ask them not to devlop nuclear weapons when we have them and when they are surrounded by them. Should we ask them nicely? When was the last time Iran invaded another country? Iran is as terrified as we would be should China invade our shores.

If we want peace, this is not the way .....

Maybe Obama could make strides if he were elected another term. I would like to believe so.

Wayne says: "If there were military action required, drones would not be sufficient to cripple the program so cruise missles or heavy bombers would probably be required. I would not think ground troops would be required."

Gary Sick says: " A war with Iran would not be surgical, brief, or one-sided. As memorably noted by Gen. Anthony Zinni, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you will love Iran. It is a huge country, well-defended, with a fierce sense of nationalism. No air campaign, even if prolonged, will end the problem. Regardless of how a conflict begins, it is most likely to end with lots of boots on the ground. A squad of special forces will not do the job.

Quick bio of Gary Sick: Gary Sick served on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan, and was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. Sick is a senior research scholar and adjunct professor of international affairs at Columbia University, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch in New York, and founding chair of its advisory committee on the Middle East and North Africa.

I would take the analysis of Mr. Sick over General John Wayne Stolling's regarding Iran.

But it IS RELATED to US foreign policy and Ron Paul is the one candidate who would not have created these messes in the first place!

Quote:

No, but he would create whole new messes, which may be even worse.

It might be worth experimenting with in view of the mess created for the Iraqi people. I can't imagine a more hell'ish hell. We've done war. It has become a knee-jerk reaction while it should be the very, very last resort. It's too easy.

What Ron Paul says would not make it any harder. The Congressional vote on the actions in Iraq would not have been any easier or harder if it was a declaration of war. He personally might not have wanted to attack them, but neither would most candidates.

Quote:

Quote:

You use an example which does not support your position very well. Very few candidates would have invaded Iraq without the cherry-picked and/or created intelligence that was used to justify it.

How could you possibly know this?

Given what is known about the actual intelligence now only a fool would attack Iraq with that data and most candidates are not fools. If it had not been for the set up of 9/11 I doubt if President Bush would ahve been abel to do it either.

Quote:

Bush was elected and he accepted the erroneous intelligence ... or maybe he was in on it (?). If the information was cherry-picked or created ...how was this simple man, the President of the United States of America, manipulated?

The fact there had been a plan by the Iraqi government to kill his father in retaliation for the previous invasion makes for some good circumstancial evidence that he was a part of the manipulation.

Quote:

Quote:

How can this show Dr. Paul being the "only" candidate who would not have created that mess?

That mess was not his to decide. Dr. Paul did not have the decision making capabilities at the time, but he is telling us now that he would not have, and will not be manipulated.

Therefore, he is unlikely to create further messes.

That is far from true. We created the EPA and Congress passed the Clean Water Act after rivers CAUGHT FIRE due to pollution. Now, Dr. Paul thinks we do not need such regulation because it impedes business operation. Who with any vague knowledge of the history would believe business will not do what is profitable for it at any cost to others? That is but one mess and a big one.

The mess that can come from an isolationist position is just a scary, but again it requires a passing knowledge of history and how easily small changes could have big results.

Quote:

Quote:

Isolationism most likely comes with its own problems, but again, I cannot imagine a more hell'ish hell than that suffered by Iraq and ohhh, how many nations have been the victims of US foreign policy!

More hellish than 9/11 with a nuke added? More hellish than women living under Taliban rule.

Quote:

Did we invade their country because of women's rights? If so, we would have done it a long time ago. This is a point that people bring up all the time but has NOTHING to do with why we invaded them. We can express moral indignation about their rather weird treatment of women, but that is not why we invaded.

No, we assisted the revolution in Libya along with the other members of NATO in the attampt to form a more representative government. None of this would be a concern of the US under President Paul.

Quote:

We have nukes. Unless we disarm ours and the countries we supply with arms ... how can we possibly complain about Iran wanting to develop their own .... when they are surrounded by countries who are capable?

It could have something to do with their history in conflict. We have nukes as a means to prevent their use and Iran would more likely use their weapons in a first strike than would the other countries, other than North Korea, which is a good example of why such countries should not be allowed to develop them.

Quote:

Quote:

More hellish than the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia prior to the NATO actions?

But how can we use this example or WW2 to justify the occupation of military bases in 160 countries today?

We had to use assets in those bases in order stop the ethnic cleansing. The logistics of trying to do anything without support bases makes it much more slow and much more difficult to do anything. Of course, Dr. Paul would probably ignored the situation in any case as it was not an American issue.

Quote:

Quote:

Looking at the world with blinders is a good way to create a knee-jerk reaction. The poorly considered invasion of Iraq becomes the isolationist movement and the next time there really needs to be some action we ignore it as we did in the 1930s right up to where we were directly attacked and could not continue to do so.

You are using the examples of WW2 to justify our policing of the world today ..... Since WW2, we have had military bases in Germany. Time to shut it down? Ron Paul thinks so.

OK, shut them down and reduce the size of the military accordingly because there are not bases in the US that have capacity to take these units nor is there a mission for them in the US. Then what happens when there is a conflict that can be kept small if the response is sufficiently quick? Evidently nothing if Dr. Paul is President and very little if it is the President following him as the assets have been gutted.

Quote:

The American people are sick and tired of war, of the trillions spent on them and of the inexcuseable carnage and human suffering caused by them. If you don't send them in to begin with, there is far less to mitigate.

Unless the situation grows to the point it flares into a significant conflict, which is never considered it seems. The last major war was easily diverted by a strong stance in the beginning, but that was not done and it flared wildly.

Quote:

Quote:

Not if the inaction creates a larger problem to mitigate. How large would the problem have been if Hilter had allowed us to continue to ignore him? If he had not declared war after the Japanese attack we still would have ignored his actions and our aid to the Allies would have been curtailed due to our conflict with Japan. German war echnology would have had longer to develop without interruption.

Hitler is the reason for our continued "intervention" and present day carnage?

Hilter and the rest of history.

Quote:

Because we had an isolationist government in the 1940's, a present day theory of non-intervention is not valid? Yes, yes .... I see what you are saying ... that there are times and reasons ..... but history never repeats itself quite in the same ways.

Really? You need to look at the German invasion of France in WWI and WWII to see just how similar history can be.

Quote:

Quote:

How does he prevent historical actions? The future is unknown and isolationism can be just as much of a problem as prior actions.

Let's try it. I bet it will serve up it's own problems for sure but nothing like the hell-fire unleashed on Iraq, ... and I imagine Iran will suffer the same, especially if Mit Romney gets in. He can't wait to invade Iran.

I would not vote for Romney either so the choice offered makes no difference.

Quote:

Quote:

How does that compare to the hell unleashed on Europe and the rest of the world because the US held an isolationist position that embolded the Axis powers? One good nuke can provide enough material to kill millions in a very slow and painful fashion.

As the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki know the strength of an atom bomb ....

No, they only saw a prototype the current weapons are much more powerful if used as an explosive device. The problem is the plutonium used in the bombs can also be used as a weapon with conventional explosives. It will not only kill very slowly and painfully but will do so for a very long time.

Quote:

So let us de-nuke the world! It is not fair for just one country to have nukes, while others do not. For one country to have nuclear capabilities, and then assist others to have them .... while imposing sanctions on Iran, for example, because they want to build their own ...... Craziness in progress. You cannot hope for peace in this way.

We have been trying to do that. Have you heard of the treaties to reduce the numbers of weapons and to prevent the creation of new ones like in Iran?

Quote:

He is in favor of defence and not of nation building militarism. If we aren't molesting other countries, there is a much greater probability they will leave us alone.

At least until they have a better position than we do.

Quote:

Quote:

Really? Have you read any history at all? The economies of the world are inter-connected and as such we cannot be left alone by such actions.

And we cannot subject other nations to unfair economic losses in favor of our own, and not call it violence.

So you do not see the connection outside of the assumption of US being bad and all. The actions in the rest of the world have an impact on the US whether you want to believe it or not. The oil supplies being affected in the middle east do not supply much of our oil, but it does affect the price significantly. The aid to other countries affects the farmers in the US because a lot of aid is in the form of food. No aid, no food, no demand, no market for some crops. The same for military aid and those businesses. The only difference is that with US military aid tied to US equipment pressure can be brought for peace in the supply of parts being adjusted. The bigger picture is much more complex and interconnected than it seems many people grasp.

Quote:

We cannot live off the backs of third world nations, for example, and then impose this falsehood of "thirld world debt" on them. If the economies of the world are so interrelated .... and they are .... Why do other nations "rebel"? Disenfranchised groups will absolutely rebel when they are powerless.

Of what nations are you speaking that "rebel"?

Quote:

And since occupying various countries in the middle east, there are even more who would like to attack the US.

Quote:

Not really, as the governments who ASKED for assistance in the area are no more lilely to want to attack the US. Kuwait and their "allies" in the region were more than happy to have the assistance of the multinational force led by the US.

They were not and are not even capable of attacking us anyway.

So the goal posts move from "like to attack us" to "can attack us"? Actually, they could if they really wanted to do so, but in a more terrorist fashion.

Quote:

Quote:

The new government in Libya is not likely to support terrorist groups in the near future.

Who supported the US terrorists in Libya? Did the Libyan people want the US bombing their neighborhoods and universities? Did anyone ask the citizens of Libya?

The citizens of Libya pleaded for aid from the western nations when the government sent in troops. Did you not follow the news at all?

Quote:

Why didn't the US invade Egypt? Seems the Egyptians took to Tahir Square without the US drones doing battle for them. We cannot save countries by bombing them.

It might be because the Egyptian military did not attack the cities or that the citizens did not plead for assistance.

Quote:

Quote:

The government in Afghanistan supported the terrorist organization which did attack us. The old government in Iraq disliked us very much for not allowing them to keep Kuwait while killing their own people.

Why did they support that organization. Why?

I imagine there were many reasons and money was one of them.

Quote:

Huh what? Ron Paul admits that terrorists are created, in part, through our foreign policy to date. Has there been another candidate who has admitted to this?

Yes, terrorists have their roots in policies by the western nations which go back hundreds of years.

Quote:

Policing the world, shoving democracy down their throats, imposing sanctions if they do not obey .... of course they are murderously angry with the US and it is the foreign policy to date which leads us more and more into danger. And if we don't stop, it is 100% guaranteed there will be endless blood shed. Isn't it worth trying a different tact? As Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it." Wars just create more wars. It will be endless.

We tried that after WWI and how did that work out for everyone? Oh, thats right THIS time it would be different .... or that is usually the reply from the Libertarians when the historical record shows such failures.

Quote:

Quote:

I can see how asking the Iranians very nicely will keep them from building a nuclear arsenal and how none of the nations would ever allow one or more of their nuclear weapons to be used in an attack. Look at how rationally the North Korean government has acted with sanctions and tell us how it would have been better without them and the decreased income for their military.

Why shouldn't Iran build a nuclear weapon when they are surrounded by nations who have capabilities that they do not have?

Because they are unstable and are most likely to use the weapons as a first strike against their neighbors, Israel, or to block the shipments to and from the Gulf.

Quote:

And when they have a super-power such as the US breathing down their necks? If they asked us to disarm our nukes, would we?

Not unless the other powers did too, but you are focused on anything other than the larger picture.

Quote:

Again, it is not sane or rational or even fair to ask them not to devlop nuclear weapons when we have them and when they are surrounded by them. Should we ask them nicely? When was the last time Iran invaded another country? Iran is as terrified as we would be should China invade our shores.

If we want peace, this is not the way .....

HUH? Iran is as terrified as we would be with an actual invasion? That is not logical.

Quote:

Maybe Obama could make strides if he were elected another term. I would like to believe so.

Not unless the make up of Congress changes. There are too many indications of opposition for the sake of opposition rather than trying to help the country with the present Congress.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne says: "If there were military action required, drones would not be sufficient to cripple the program so cruise missles or heavy bombers would probably be required. I would not think ground troops would be required."

Gary Sick says: " A war with Iran would not be surgical, brief, or one-sided. As memorably noted by Gen. Anthony Zinni, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you will love Iran. It is a huge country, well-defended, with a fierce sense of nationalism. No air campaign, even if prolonged, will end the problem. Regardless of how a conflict begins, it is most likely to end with lots of boots on the ground. A squad of special forces will not do the job.

Quick bio of Gary Sick: Gary Sick served on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan, and was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. Sick is a senior research scholar and adjunct professor of international affairs at Columbia University, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch in New York, and founding chair of its advisory committee on the Middle East and North Africa.

I would take the analysis of Mr. Sick over General John Wayne Stolling's regarding Iran.

Maybe you should try to understand the difference in crippling (stopping any advancement at this level at this time) a program and eliminating (ending means the problem will no longer exist) it completely. I was speaking of the former and Mr. Sick was speaking of the latter. The former is an option which would be undertaken first because the latter is not a viable option at this time.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne, I had a nicely formatted response typed out but I lost it. I'll just touch on key points.

Don't you hate that?

I do and sometimes I've made a point of highlighting and copying before I hit the submit or preview button. This time, alas, I did no such thing.

I'm with you on Paul, pretty much, so far as real change is concerned. I don't think he'd ever get anywhere near where his hard line libertarian supporters would like, however, and I'd be interested to see just what he would get through. That is, as opposed to someone like Romney, Gingrich, Perry, or Obama for another 4. It's that proverbial lesser of 2 evils thing or in this case, the least of 3.

Quote:

Quote:

Are we going to get a meaningful amount more out of what we did in Afghanistan than had we either done nothing or much, much less?

Yes, because if we had done nothing the organization would still be intact and protected by the Taliban. If we had done much, much less, it is hard to know as there is no way to quantify what we may have done or not done.

Okay, I'm putting on my rational cap and trying to wrap my head around this one. If we don't know what would have come from nothing or less, how could we possibly know we're getting more out of what we did? We did more, for sure, and we accomplished the goals, but the result of doing so is that at which I'm driving here.

Quote:

Quote:

Was the goal in Afghanistan the right goal?

It was the most right goal we could hope to accomplish. A further goal of equality for the citizens, etc., could have been set, but the US did not have the inclination to try to do that because of the cost in both resources and time.

Maybe you should try to understand the difference in crippling (stopping any advancement at this level at this time) a program and eliminating (ending means the problem will no longer exist) it completely. I was speaking of the former and Mr. Sick was speaking of the latter. The former is an option which would be undertaken first because the latter is not a viable option at this time.

And you don't think "crippling" the program, as you describe, would not result in an all out war with Iran?

Wayne, I had a nicely formatted response typed out but I lost it. I'll just touch on key points.

Don't you hate that?

I do and sometimes I've made a point of highlighting and copying before I hit the submit or preview button. This time, alas, I did no such thing.

Me too. I have lost posts in the process of going to get links and having the page "reset" without my additions.

Quote:

I'm with you on Paul, pretty much, so far as real change is concerned. I don't think he'd ever get anywhere near where his hard line libertarian supporters would like, however, and I'd be interested to see just what he would get through. That is, as opposed to someone like Romney, Gingrich, Perry, or Obama for another 4. It's that proverbial lesser of 2 evils thing or in this case, the least of 3.

The problem is just how limited the President is on changing things without Congress. Without the clear support of Congress or at least a reasonable Congress, which has been lacking of late, the President can do very little. For example, if Dr. Paul wanted to eliminate the EPA there are still problems with how the enforcement of the Clean Air and Water Acts and all of the associated laws Congress has passed.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Are we going to get a meaningful amount more out of what we did in Afghanistan than had we either done nothing or much, much less?

Yes, because if we had done nothing the organization would still be intact and protected by the Taliban. If we had done much, much less, it is hard to know as there is no way to quantify what we may have done or not done.

Okay, I'm putting on my rational cap and trying to wrap my head around this one. If we don't know what would have come from nothing or less, how could we possibly know we're getting more out of what we did?

But we know what would ahve come from doing nothing or less than eliminating the organization's leadership. There would have been more attempts to attack the US because there had been multiple attempts in the past and with the organization still intact they would have continused to try. There is no reason for that to have changed. The cost to benefit ratio would be harder to determine for other actions not taken though.

Quote:

We did more, for sure, and we accomplished the goals, but the result of doing so is that at which I'm driving here.

Yes, I understand.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Was the goal in Afghanistan the right goal?

It was the most right goal we could hope to accomplish. A further goal of equality for the citizens, etc., could have been set, but the US did not have the inclination to try to do that because of the cost in both resources and time.

When the "most right" is half-assed...

Yes, but we had limits on what cost we were willing to pay .... and still go after Iraq

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Maybe you should try to understand the difference in crippling (stopping any advancement at this level at this time) a program and eliminating (ending means the problem will no longer exist) it completely. I was speaking of the former and Mr. Sick was speaking of the latter. The former is an option which would be undertaken first because the latter is not a viable option at this time.

And you don't think "crippling" the program, as you describe, would not result in an all out war with Iran?

No, did it result in an all out war when Israel bombed the facility in Iraq? Can the bulk of the Iranian military be attacked and kept in check from the sea and air like the Iraqi military was?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I'm with you on Paul, pretty much, so far as real change is concerned. I don't think he'd ever get anywhere near where his hard line libertarian supporters would like, however, and I'd be interested to see just what he would get through. That is, as opposed to someone like Romney, Gingrich, Perry, or Obama for another 4. It's that proverbial lesser of 2 evils thing or in this case, the least of 3.

The problem is just how limited the President is on changing things without Congress. Without the clear support of Congress or at least a reasonable Congress, which has been lacking of late, the President can do very little. For example, if Dr. Paul wanted to eliminate the EPA there are still problems with how the enforcement of the Clean Air and Water Acts and all of the associated laws Congress has passed.

But the EPA won't be eliminated and he'll be forced to work with what he's got. The alternative is having an establishment canditate either hit a wall or push the same old crap through.

Quote:

Quote:

Okay, I'm putting on my rational cap and trying to wrap my head around this one. If we don't know what would have come from nothing or less, how could we possibly know we're getting more out of what we did?

But we know what would ahve come from doing nothing or less than eliminating the organization's leadership. There would have been more attempts to attack the US because there had been multiple attempts in the past and with the organization still intact they would have continused to try.

It's still a band-aid. Alright, maybe more like stitches and rest of the tumor that was missed.

Quote:

There is no reason for that to have changed. The cost to benefit ratio would be harder to determine for other actions not taken though.

There's no reason it's going to be any better either, not in the long term. We paid a pretty hefty price for time.

Quote:

Quote:

When the "most right" is half-assed...

Yes, but we had limits on what cost we were willing to pay .... and still go after Iraq

Iraq or not, the job in Afghanistan would have remained half-assed. Pronouncing goals and ultimately achieving them doesn't do alot of good if the problem is let be, which it was.